[Discussion] related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for
related substances are doing more work than we give it credit for, and I am aware this is a minority view on this board. Sent one vial to VendorInvestigate and Janoshik. 98.9% and a claimed 98.0%. Cost me more than the vial and I would do it again. The PDF creation date being later than the analysis date is usually a…
Water content 3.8%, acetate 6.2%, purity 99%, net peptide about 90% of label weight. All four numbers honest, and I had to read it twice.
Water content 3.8%, acetate 6.2%, purity 99%, net peptide about 90% of label weight.
valeria_karlsen has the distinction right — one is a fraction of the detector signal, the other is a fraction of the mass.
My first certificate had a compound name, a percentage and a logo. I thought that was normal. It is not, and now I know what to ask for.
Are the related substances itemised or is it a single total?
Disagree that a lower number is automatically worse. A conservative claim that survives testing is worth more than an optimistic one that does not.
area% is not mass%, and the difference is the whole game
water content is on there and everyone skips it
batch number, date of analysis, method, individual impurities — that is the minimum set
Small fix — 214nm, not 280nm. It matters here because the impurity you are asking about barely absorbs at the longer wavelength.
batch number, date of analysis, method, individual impurities — that is the minimum set
Adding the bit that always gets missed: the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the page, or none of this applies to your material.
Did you get the chromatogram or only the summary line?